[OT] Spiderman -- and why I have hope for Attack of the Clones

[mmadsen]

I would consider myself the kind of person who should go see the Spiderman movie. I loved the cartoon as a kid -- c'mon, you still know the theme-song lyrics! -- I enjoyed the later Spiderman and his Amazing Friends cartoon, I read the comics in junior high, and I like Sam Raimi.

But when I saw the ads on TV, I lost all interest.

After reading some good reviews though, I finally went to see the movie this past weekend. I really enjoyed it. Frankly though, the bad CGI repeatedly pulled me out of the movie. I think I enjoyed the non-action sequences more than the high-budget fight scenes -- and it's those high-budget CGI scenes that filled the ads and turned me off.

I'm not saying all the CGI work was awful, but when it was awful -- or when they made the transition from sleek CGI to Toby in a costume -- it really stood out.

I think the writing carried the movie. That's right, the writing carried the high-budget summer blockbuster, despite it's special effects. With better -- or fewer! -- special effects, and without the senseless girl-catches-herself-from-30-foot-fall-by-grabbing-metal-bar scene, it would've been excellent.

So what does this have to do with Attack of the Clones? Well, the CGI-filled ads haven't impressed me at all. The wooden acting in the recent ads hasn't impressed me either. But maybe, just maybe, the movie is much better than its "best" scenes that they decided to put in the ads.

 

[Sodalis]

correct me if I am wrong, but i dont think the best scenes are supposed to be in the trailers. The trailers are teasers or scenes that clue you in on the story- and give you an idea on the mood and tone of the story. The best scenes are usually left out so that you can be pleasantly surprised or ecven impressed only if you go see the movie.

I was kinda upset at tPM when it showed that darth maul had a double light saber. When i first saw it in the trailer tho- it was awesome. but when it came out in the movie, it wasnt as grand as i hoped... in the first fight with QuiGon in the desert of Tatooine, I was wonderin why he didnt bust out the second side of the LS, we already knew about it, why save it to the end?

But when i saw mace windu fight, i said the same thing- why not have this as a surprise in the movie... but Lucas had a surprise- Yoda picks up a weapon... *cheer*

so i think the trailers are purposely made as teasers- and from the reviews so far, it sounds like a great movie.

 

[Ristamar]

From what I've heard, most of the best stuff in Attack of the Clones hasn't been blown by the 13+ TV spots. Plenty of people (who have seen the movie) post comments along the lines of, "Concerned that you saw too much already and spoiled the best parts? Well, don't worry. Even if you've watched all the trailers, you haven't seen anything yet."

 

[mmadsen]

From what I've heard, most of the best stuff in Attack of the Clones hasn't been blown by the 13+ TV spots.

My concern with Attack of the Clones is not that I've already seen the good parts; it's that what I've seen turns me off. The effects look cartoony, and, far more importantly, the acting seems terribly wooden.

If it didn't keep getting positive reviews, I wouldn't consider going. (OK, I'd consider it, if only to know what everyone's talking about around the water cooler.)

I've found myself far more hyped up by the action figures -- even though I don't collect action figures -- and the boardgames I saw at Target.

Similarly, I almost didn't see Spiderman, because the ads painted such a bad picture. Am I alone in finding the CGI highlights in the ads really unappealing?

 

[Savage Wombat]

I agree. Every time I saw a Spiderman teaser, I couldn't help but wonder "Just what about this is making everyone scream how awesome it looks?" I just didn't get it - and after seeing the movie, I still didn't.

The best scenes in the movie were with Toby McGuire, not Spiderman.

The best fight scene was the one with him in the costume, not the CGI.

The CGI was good, but only "video-game" good in my mind. The Green Goblin looked like something out of Power Rangers, honestly. Now, Osborne and the mirror scene - that was filmmaking.

 

[el-remmen]

I had the exact opposite reaction to Spider-man.

The action scenes were AWESOME - while the non-action parts were lame - half of the greatness of Spider-man is his supporting cast and basically they were bad across the board. . (except Mary Jane)

 

[kenjib]

I agree with the negative cgi evaluation for Spiderman. The previews looked pretty bad to me. They were just as bad in the movie. Spiderman looked like one of those old Hulk Hogan toys where you can stretch the arms way out - all rubber and no bones. I think cgi still has a long way to go to get realistic motion and for the most part I prefer older technology. Look at Aliens. The effects still look far better than any cgi made today.

I did enjoy the movie, but like mmadsen points out it was for all of the other parts of the film, not the action. The action was very cliche and predictabl

 

[Gizzard]

Hmmm, I had the opposite opinion, I really liked the kinetic nature of the action sequences and was disappointed in a couple of the story points.

> Spiderman looked like one of those old Hulk Hogan toys
> where you can stretch the arms way out - all rubber and
> no bones

This seems to be an artistic choice though, and I thought it worked. Spiderman bounces around like a Superball; I thought it gave him a super-human (or even alien) feel, as opposed to, say, Batman who is always just a guy in a mask.

Are we critiquing the technical quality of the CGI or the artistic quality? I didnt notice any technical flaws myself, but I can see why someone might not like the artistic choices.

> The best scenes in the movie were with Toby McGuire,
> not Spiderman.

I think it really helped that McGuire is a good actor. He couldnt save some of the bad writing (the hospital sequence with MJ), but at least he kept it afloat.

> Now, Osborne and the mirror scene - that was filmmaking.

Ugh, really? I like Dafoe a lot, but he seemed to come up short in this role. I really did *not* like the mirror scene and I was debating with my friends what went wrong there. I proposed that Dafoe did his job, but that the editing and camerawork in the sequence allowed you to see him switching back and forth between personas outside the mirror (which breaks the point of using the mirror as a prop.)

 

[Piratecat]

I thought the mirror scene was great.

That being said, I thought the writing was pretty good until the last ten minutes. Oh my goodness, I couldn't have been more disappointed with the funeral scene - bad writing hamstrung whatever acting talent the actos had. Whoever wrote that little monologue for Kirsten Dunst ought to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

The rest of the movie? Lots of fun.

 

[kenjib]

This seems to be an artistic choice though, and I thought it worked. Spiderman bounces around like a Superball; I thought it gave him a super-human (or even alien) feel, as opposed to, say, Batman who is always just a guy in a mask.

Are we critiquing the technical quality of the CGI or the artistic quality? I didnt notice any technical flaws myself, but I can see why someone might not like the artistic choices.

Most of the pure cgi effects I've seen in films have been rubbery like this, so I assumed that it was the medium rather than an artistic choice. I could very well be wrong though. Regardless of whether it's technical or artistic, however, it doesn't really matter. Personally, I didn't care for the look and feel of the cgi scenes. For me, the stark difference in spiderman's motions between scenes where he was pure cgi and when he was a stuntman in a costume was jarring to say the least. In addition the cgi motion not only looked alien, but downright artificial.